Trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis of toric versus monofocal intraocular lenses in cataract patients with bilateral corneal astigmatism in the Netherlands

Rob W. P. Simons*, Nienke Visser, Frank J. H. M. van den Biggelaar, Rudy M. M. A. Nuijts, Carroll A. B. Webers, Noel J. C. Bauer, Henny J. M. Beckers, Carmen D. Dirksen

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

2 Citations (Web of Science)
56 Downloads (Pure)


Purpose: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of toric versus monofocal intraocular lens (100 implantation in cataract patients with bilateral corneal astigmatism.

Setting: Two ophthalmology clinics in the Netherlands.

Design: Prospective cost-effectiveness analysis.

Methods: Resource-use data were collected over a 6-month postoperative period. Consecutive patients with bilateral age-related cataract and 1.25 diopters or more of corneal astigmatism were included in the economic evaluation. Patients were randomized to phacoemulsification with bilateral toric or monofocal IOL implantation. All relevant resources were included in the cost analysis. The base-case analysis was performed from a societal perspective based on quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The main outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

Results: The analysis comprised 77 consecutive patients (33 toric IOL; 44 monofocal IOL). Societal costs were higher in the toric IOL group ((sic)3203 [$3864]) than in the monofocal IOL group ((sic)2796 [US$3373]). QALYs were slightly lower in the toric IOL group (0.30 versus 0.31; P = .75). Toric IOLs were therefore inferior to monofocal IOLs from a cost-effectiveness perspective. The cost-effectiveness probability ranged from 1% to 15%, assuming a ceiling ratio for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of (sic)2500 to (sic)20 000 per QALY.

Conclusions: From a societal perspective, bilateral toric IOL implantation in cataract patients with corneal astigmatism was not cost-effective compared with monofocal IOL implantation. Copayment by patients should therefore be considered. (C) 2018 ASCRS and ESCRS

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)146-152
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - Feb 2019



Cite this